Mandatory injunctions require clear legal authority and necessity to ensure lawful management by elected officials, preventing interference by those expelled from an association.

Introduction

[1] On the 22 July 2025, this Court had granted the following relief in favour of the plaintiff:

(i) a mandatory Order of injunction against the first to the fourth defendants for them to deliver vacant possession of the building used as a temple by the name of Thurgai Aman Temple (the "said Temple") sited on the premises known as Lot 481300, Jalan Bukit Ledang, Off Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim, 50480 Kuala Lumpur within two weeks of the Order but the devotees including the defendants are at liberty to patronise the said Temple;

(ii) an order prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff and the committee that was appointed pursuant to the 12th Annual General Meeting of the Persatuan Penganut Thurgai Amaman Alayam Kuala Lumpur held on 6 October 2024 in managing the affairs of the said Temple;

(iii) the first to fourth defendants are to render an account for all monies collected or received by the defendants jointly or severally from members of the public be it in the form of donations or fees for ceremonies performed at the said Temple until the date of delivery of vacant possession by the first to fourth defendants to the plaintiff;

(iv) the first to fourth defendants are to jointly and severally pay costs of RM2,000.00 subject to allocatur to the plaintiff.

[2] Dissatisfied, the first, third and fourth defendant appealed against the Order of 22 July 2025. The second defendant did not appeal against the said order. These are the grounds of judgment.

Parties

[3] The plaintiff is the Chairman and Public Officer of the Persatuan Penganut Thurgai Amman Alayam, an association registered with the Registrar of Societies under the Societies Act 1966 with the registration number PPM: 27-14-1105012 (the said "Association").

[4] The Association is responsible for managing the said Temple.

[5] The defendants are individuals having possession of the said Temple.

Background

[6] The plaintiff was elected by the members of the Association as its Chairman during its Annual General Meeting ("AGM") held on 6 October 2024. He is also registered as the Public Officer of the Association pursuant to s 9(c) Societies Act 1966 which provides as follows:

"a society may sue or be sued in the name of such one of its members as shall be declared to the Registrar and registered by him as the public officer of the society for that purpose, and, if no such person is registered, it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against the society to sue the society in the name of any office-bearer of the society"

[7] Between 2022 and 2024, there were disputes and altercations between the defendants on the one side and the plaintiff on the other side with possession of the said Temple having been placed under the control of one faction or the other.

[8] The said Temple is currently under the possession and control of the defendants. Allegations that force was used to secure possession by one faction or the other were made, and police reports lodged.

[9] Having been elected as the Chairman of the Association via the AGM of 6 October 2024, the plaintiff commenced this action via Originating Summons to seek the reliefs for which an Order in the terms aforementioned was made.

Rival Contentions

Plaintiff's Assertio